Another piece of interest in The New Yorker, unfortunately not available online, is Peter J. Boyer's critical evaluation of the state of the Catholic Church at the start of Cardinal Ratzinger's ascension as Benedict XVI. He brings to mind an important point, in terms of American politics -- that under Benedict, the ultra-orthodox regime of John Paul II will continue, which means that the American Catholic episcopacy will also continue to be orthodox, conservative and regressive. (As well as, according to liberal American Catholic critics, mediocre, sycophantic, and intellectually incompetent -- "the worst group of bishops in modern Church history.") Because of this, we're likely to continue to see the Catholic hierarchy make problems for Catholic politicians who support reproductive rights, rights for gays and lesbians, and other positions which go against the official teachings of the Church -- in the manner of the fuss made in the last election over whether Kerry should receive communion because of his stand on abortion.

Given this, I think I would be inclined to view negatively the bid of a Catholic politician for the Democratic nomination in 2008 -- not because of anything to do with their Catholicism per se, but because I don't see any particular value in giving the enemies of progressive thought a weapon to use against our candidate, not with the country so fairly evenly divided, and victory apparently dependent on avoiding having your potential supporters sliced-and-diced away.

(This is also one of the reasons that I do not take very seriously the contention of some that the Democratic party needs to attempt to cater more to religionists. Generally speaking, pace Amy Sullivan, people of religion who are liberal-minded are already on our side, and those that remain are more likely to follow the dictates of their churches than they are to make up their own minds. Since many of these hierarchies, like the Catholic Church's, tend to be conservative, I just don't see a lot of votes out there that can be swayed. Update (5/14): Digby on this topic.)

Of course, I realize how sad it is -- given the prejudice that JFK faced as a Catholic running for the Presidency -- to say that a candidate's Catholicism will work against them, but it's not a position I take by choice -- it's been forced on me by the political shenanigans of the archbishops of the American Catholic Church, who used to be a force for progressive values, but are not now.

Update (5/14): Via Digby, take a look at this great map from USA Today. You'll note that "No religion" holds a plurality position in several Western states, and in much of the North and Midwest is the second or third largest segment of the population. In such a circumstance, with no apparent boom in religious belief in the country, and non-religionists the fastest growing sector, I just don't see what the brouhaha is, and why Sullivan et al. seem determined to get bent out of shape about Democrats not going after the religious vote. It looks to me as if they're fighting the last war, not the one we're currently in.

Digby:

There is good evidence that we are the victims of Republican hype on this religious issue, which perpetuates itself in the servile media, creating a faddish obsession with religiousity at a time when more people are actually leaving religion than coming into it. Like the phony campaign against Christmas, they are tying us up in knots with this theocratic correctness. For both practical and principled reasons, we shouldn't let them do it.

If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.

If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.

(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)

Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.